sonar_remedy_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose that the output includes the next action and ETA, which is useful on its face, but it does not mention side effects, read-only guarantees, failure modes, or how the 'state' input affects the result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one tight sentence with no filler and the core reporting purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though the conciseness comes at the cost of omitting parameter and usage context, which is penalized elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too sparse. It names the expected type of result but fails to explain the meaning of 'state', the structure of the report, or how this relates to the queue and sibling operations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'state' parameter at all. Since the schema only says the parameter is a required string, the agent has no idea what valid states are, what formats are accepted, or what relationship 'state' has to the queue's next action.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('the queue's next action and ETA'), so an agent can tell this tool is about queue status. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling sonar_remedy_progress, which likely overlaps in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus any sibling, nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer that status is useful for checking queue progression, but no explicit usage context is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.